Opinion
1:17-CR-00159 EAW
12-17-2020
UNITED STATES of America, v. Keyon PRUITT-BOYETTE, Defendant.
Joel L. Violanti, U.S. Attorney's Office, Buffalo, NY, for United States of America. Fonda Dawn Kubiak, Federal Public Defender, Buffalo, NY, for Defendant.
Joel L. Violanti, U.S. Attorney's Office, Buffalo, NY, for United States of America.
Fonda Dawn Kubiak, Federal Public Defender, Buffalo, NY, for Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is a motion filed by defendant Keyon Pruitt-Boyette (hereinafter "Defendant") for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). (Dkt. 238). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's request is denied.
II. BACKGROUND
Defendant, who is 32 years old (Dkt. 210 at 2), was convicted of a conspiracy to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and sentenced on August 27, 2019, to 70 months in prison to be followed by five years supervised release, representing a sentence at the lowest end of the Guidelines range. (Dkt. 220). Defendant contends that compassionate release is warranted because of the COVID-19 pandemic and his pre-existing medical conditions. (Dkt. 238). According to a Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") website, Defendant is currently housed at Federal Correctional Institution Allenwood (Low) ("FCI Allenwood (Low)") with a projected release date of May 11, 2023. See Find an Inmate , Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2020). Statistics published on another BOP website indicate that FCI Allenwood (Low) currently has 43 inmates and 9 staff members who have tested positive for the virus causing COVID-19, with 21 inmates and 2 staff who have recovered. See COVID-19: Coronavirus , Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2020). According to the government, there are 918 inmates at FCI Allenwood (Low). (Dkt. 240).
The government has submitted a response in opposition to Defendant's motion (id. ), and it also submitted to Chambers a copy of Defendant's medical records obtained from the BOP. Those medical records support Defendant's contention that he suffers from certain mental health diagnoses, and he also has a Body Mass Index greater than 30. Defendant also makes a reference in his motion to a past history of "heart murmur and seizures" but there does not appear to be evidence of this in the BOP medical records, nor is there any report of this in the Presentence Investigation Report. (Dkt. 210 at ¶ 77). In addition, the United States Probation Department ("USPO") submitted a memorandum dated December 3, 2020, wherein it indicates its opposition to Defendant's motion in view of the information provided by FCI Allenwood (Low) as to steps taken to prevent the spread of the virus causing COVID-19, and Defendant's criminal record, drug history, and employment instability. (Dkt. 241).
III. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
"A court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except pursuant to statute." United States v. Gotti , 433 F. Supp. 3d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). The compassionate release statute, as amended by the First Step Act, is such a statutory exception, and provides as follows:
The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that ... the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier, may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of probation or supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment), after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that ... extraordinary and compelling reasons
warrant such a reduction ... and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission[.]
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Relief is appropriate pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A) when the following conditions are met: (1) the exhaustion requirement of the statute is satisfied; (2) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction of the prison sentence; and (3) the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support modification of the prison term.
The Second Circuit has held that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 Application Note 1(D) does not apply to compassionate release motions brought directly to the court, and therefore a court is not constrained by the Sentencing Guideline's policy statements as to what constitutes "extraordinary and compelling." United States v. Brooker , 976 F.3d 228, 236 (2d Cir. 2020).
--------
The government does not oppose Defendant's application on exhaustion grounds, as he filed a request with the Warden at FCI Allenwood (Low) for release and that request was denied on October 27, 2020. (Dkt. 240 at 2). See United States v. Wen , 454 F. Supp. 3d 187, 194 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (as a claim-processing rule, § 3582(c)(1)(A) ’s exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and thus subject to the doctrines of waiver and equitable estoppel). As a result, the exhaustion requirements of the statute do not operate to bar the Court's consideration of the motion.
However, the Court concludes that Defendant has failed to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction, and the § 3553(a) factors do not support a sentence reduction. Defendant's medical situation as documented by the BOP records and the conditions at FCI Allenwood (Low) do not rise to "extraordinary and compelling reasons" justifying a reduction in this Court's original sentence. In addition, the § 3553(a) factors counsel against granting Defendant's motion. As detailed in the government's opposition papers (Dkt. 240 at 12-14), Defendant's offense conduct and criminal history demonstrate that the sentence originally imposed was warranted and that releasing Defendant would present a danger of the community. Indeed, as noted in the USPO memorandum, Defendant's conduct while under pretrial supervision was "not exemplary." (Dkt. 241 at 3). Reducing Defendant's sentence would seriously undermine the goals of sentencing as reflected by the Court's original sentence. See United States v. Roney , 833 F. App'x 850, 854, No. 20-1834 (2d Cir. Nov. 2, 2020) ("[C]ourts regularly consider whether compassionate release would be consistent with § 3553(a) by considering how early release would impact the aims of the original sentence.").
In sum, the Court concludes that a reduction of Defendant's prison sentence is not justified.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Dkt. 238) is denied.
SO ORDERED.